“[Solar is] the antithesis of the utility business model and it allows customers to really take control over their own energy future, which is something the utility doesn’t like,” said Rick Gilliam, program director for DG regulatory policy at California-based nonprofit Vote Solar. “It’s a monopoly and it wants to maintain its position as the sole provider of service.”

In response, given the circumstances, I would expect this resistance by utilities (their management and partners in government) on human nature alone. Where an uncertain change in the status quo can negatively affect the livelihood of the primary benefactors of such monopolies and their associates, there is absolutely no basic economic incentive to advance change — in this case, more energy choices such as solar. The rules are inherently stacked against disruption for more choice.

So, the solution isn’t just voting for more solar and trying to compete with utilities within their own operational framework. The real solution lays in changing the artificially imposed structure and liaison with government which controls much of the generation and distribution of energy — no small task I admit — but that is the job at hand.

Unlike participants in freer markets, where government intervenes less, where no governmental regulation ensures monopoly, where there is every incentive to please the customer — lest your doors close — utilities are just the opposite. Given these advantages, combined with the fundamental necessity of energy, there is a huge incentive not to change or improve services that would otherwise derail the gravy train. Thus, structural change in the energy market must be demanded by more persons with continued pressure supplied by distributed renewable energy technology — sort of a force-multiplier effect.

Many argue that renewables are absolutely necessary to prevent anthropogenic global warming. Even if you trust the proponents of this brand of climate change, this is still not the primary benefit of renewable energy, only a spinoff. The real benefit is that distributed renewables provide the greatest degree of freedom for individuals to potentially provide, maintain and exchange, the most basic component of living and improving one’s well-being: energy.

When you realize that literally everything that most of us do throughout the day requires energy, then you can begin to fathom the liberating effects of individuals creating clean distributed energy, not to mention less geopolitical stress and often war in securing and protecting sources of energy. On an economic level, individual energy independence and diversity are synonymous with all forms of personal liberty and accountability.

These organizational structures, whether it is utilities, or any other governmentally owned or dominated industry will neither produce the best that can be had nor the best value propositions (diversity in choice) for whatever product or service. There is simply not the ever-constant accountability, which imbues free markets (optimally governed by one rule of law applicable to all), to adequately incentivize and distinguish the most creative, efficient, sensitive and best products and services from what can otherwise be developed.

Where the disconnect occurs is that many people feel that there are exceptions for making certain products and services, and that these inconsistencies with fundamental economic rules can be ignored — in this case, personal incentive and responsibility — and yet, they still expect to be provided with ample choice and the best value. Sorry, but sustainably, that’s impossible.

By analogy, it is no different from fixing broken windows and crooked walls in a home with a failing foundation. It makes little sense to replace the windows and cosmetically fix the walls, without curing the real problem — the failed foundation — only to endure the visible symptoms once again. The same approach must be used in sustainably solving any other problem — which includes modern governance.

However, for the near term, the greater problem is retraining ourselves how to un-learn many of the fictions and half-truths that are perpetuated by either those who don’t know any better, or those with a vested interest in the “status quo” — both are dangerous.

And for that matter, our re-education applies to more than energy, but there is no better place to start , because with energy, it is literally the foundation of everything.

Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, the number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. This staffing surge still exists today, but the promised benefits are nowhere to be seen.

The source article is a great piece from Daniel J. Mitchell because it succinctly and effectively sums up what is wrong with public education; however, it ends there.

At some point, we need to realize not only that a problem exists, not only that it is severe, but that it cannot in anyway be corrected by or from within the very structure of human organization which allowed it to evolve and survive in a deficient state – in this case, that organizational structure is government – ever subject to the whims of political successors.

No disrespect to the Cato Institute; it produces some fantastic analyses on a broad range of topics. But like most other political think tanks, it fails when the author or another subject offers a non-solution such as:

The conclusion is correct in that education would improve from greater diversity, innovation and competition. But then, logic, sound economics and reality were abandoned. The author then adds where Juan’s focus should be – on the left side of the political spectrum.

Given that public education has been under the direction of both ends of the political spectrum, and in reality usually the combination thereof, this clearly isn’t a solution.

The real problem is government itself – not the people, the structure. As a form of human organization, it cannot systematically and sustainably cleanse itself of virtually any ill whether it waste, inefficiency, or graft. Just look at the 40-year trend in the above graph in cost versus performance versus the number of employees.

It is not a right or left problem. It is a structural problem; one that cannot be resolved by politics – ever. Only the free market under one rule of law positively applied to all persons can provide diversity, innovation and competition in education. If you understand the fundamentals of business, and in particular entrepreneurialism; and then centralizing forces of government, you known that this not opinion – it is fact. More choice is always more power. Government cannot provide real choice.

If you really want broad-based educational improvement, then cut to the chase: get government out of education, and do it now.

In the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard, Fegley’s article exposes the fundamental reasons why the proverbial concept of “checks and balances” between the three branches of American government fails to protect its constituents …and I would offer, why at fundamental level government is unsustainable and doomed to fail: because all men are self-interested, regardless of the type of organizational structure from which they work.

Yet this begs the question of organizational structure – which is better?

Government

Non-Profit

Limited liability company

Partnership

Corporation

Sole-Proprietorship

Some would say that it depends.

In truth, they are all “fictions of law” or “creatures of statute”, and thus arbitrary. Nothing is accomplished by these entities unless someone actually does something i.e. digs hole, types a letter, diagnoses cancer or protects your home, etc.

Only individuals think, decide and act – not entities.

All governmental employees provide goods and services too – but because they work for government, they are not held to the higher bar of consensual exchange imposed upon non-governmental employees where the decision “to buy” is left solely to the customer.

Instead, the entire foundation of government and the subsistence of its employees is based upon force. There is no choice whether you want their services; and hence, no basic justice – which is the cornerstone of a peaceful and prosperous culture.

As such, the creation of government (not the services of governance) necessarily creates two groups of people which are held to entirely different standards of care and where the governmental class exists upon the efforts the non-governmental class – like or not – it’s actually a form of serfdom or slavery, not to mention that this sanctioned theft creates an enduring and seemingly ever expanding safe harbor for waste, inefficiency, and corruption.

Yes, the Constitution was a fantastic idea for its time and relative to other systems it has served the country’s constituents well, but time has exposed its deep flaws – namely as Fegley quoted Rothbard, pieces of paper don’t enforce themselves.

Think about it: The Constitution was signed in 1778. Fast forward to today and we can clearly see the metastasis of the U.S. Government and current conflicts of interest such as the debacle du jour: the alleged preferential treatment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI.

Is this result surprising given the rise and fall of so many civilizations?

As we can see, the great system of “checks and balances” is forever flawed by an inherent conflict of interest.

Each branch of government tends to cover the others because they all need each other to maintain the edifice of government and the interest of those who benefit from the status quo. No conspiracy here – just an expression of human nature.

The only “checks and balances” we really need is the maintenance of the power for each person to decide whether he or she needs any good or service – and for this to be enforced based upon one rule of law – the Non-Aggression Principle.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.Conceptual and title source: Tate Fegley https://mises.org/blog/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-new-attack-fourth-amendment.Media source: www.mises.org